Deal or no deal? Deal!

The negotiations in Cancun, COP16 reached a deal. I think this deserves an “!” There will be lots more at lilcarbon on the progress made at COP16, but here’s an early, non-jargony article to start you off. I know that much nuance will develop from here, but I am very happy with what I have heard so far. It isn’t like being there in person to digest the news, but I guess that’s why we have the internet.

The Wonk Room was reporting and tweeting live from the international climate talks in Cancun, Mexico.

“Confidence is back,” announced Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon at the conclusion of climate talks in Cancun at 3 am. “Hope has returned.”

Restoring hopes crushed by the collapse last year of Copenhagen’s climate negotiations, the nations of the world have rediscovered consensus on addressing global warming pollution tonight in Cancun. The top challenge for negotiators has been to figure out a successor framework to the Kyoto Protocol, which failed to set limits on the pollution of the United States (because the Senate refused to ratify the treaty) and nations like China and India (as developing countries, they are exempt from Kyoto’s binding targets). In Copenhagen, these nations sacrificed consensus and multilateralism to forge a new framework for cleaning their economies…

As hosts of the 2010 conference, the Mexican government had to not only bring parties together to come to agreement on policy, but also to restore trust in global governance — the concept that the world’s nations can work together as one on the problems that face all of humanity. (Not to be confused, unless you’re Glenn Beck or Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), with the entirely different concept of global government.) Could the nearly 200 nations of the world, from tiny islands to billion-person states, from oil-rich sheikdoms to Scandinavian states, trust each other enough to agree on a deal that included all nations?

Late Friday night, the representatives of these varied nations chose hope. With a roar of applause overwhelming one dissenting voice, they strongly endorsed a comprehensive document crafted under the leadership of the conference’s president Patricia Espinosa and the executive secretary Christiana Figueres. Countries from every corner of the world noted the mortal threat from destroying our atmosphere through fossil-fuel pollution and supported this international agreement:

South Korea: “We were warned, if we cannot achieve a balanced outcome, we’d be blamed by our children. I believe we have risen to the challenge.”

Kenya: “We plead with all to allow Cancun to send a message of hope to the world.”

Argentina: “It is really dangerous to delay any further. The compromises are reasonable, and the costs of any delay are geometric.”

China: “The government of China will act in a fully responsible manner to the people of China and the people of the world.”

United Arab Emirates: “This is a deal that works, and that works for us.”

Maldives: “I certainly speak from a country whose survival depends on these negotiations. I don’t think we should waste more time to negotiate more text. It’s about time we move on to the next stage.”

Bolivia’s delegation led the resistance to the Cancun compact, after a week of its president, Evo Morales, acting as the socialist champion of the world’s poor, especially the international peasant movement, Via Campesina. They emphasized the insufficiency of the agreement’s pollution goals and questioned the role of the World Bank, among other concerns. The legitimacy of their arguments was weakened by the fact that the countries they purported to be defending — the vulnerable nations of Africa and the small island states — unanimously support the agreement, despite its imperfection. Bolivia’s intransigence was initially supported by Cuba and the petrostates Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, but in the final moment adoption, it stood alone in opposition.

The Cancun compacts are the first real step toward building an international system that involves all global warming pollution — not just that produced by the rich nations governed by the Kyoto Protocol. With one agreement that allows for the future development of the Kyoto Protocol system, the other establishes an international Green Climate Fund to be managed by the World Bank, and enacts mechanisms to fight deforestation and deploy clean technology in the developing world. Unfortunately, the review of the adequacy of these agreements with respect to the scientific threat is set to conclude in 2015 — even though the current targets were set in 2007 and are already out of date.

The first lesson of the Cancun talks is that the governments of the world can in fact work together on global warming, even though decoupling civilization from greenhouse pollution is a herculean task. However, the second lesson is that their leadership only gets humanity so far. Only the full mobilization of the present generation can overcome the institutional barriers to change and protect our fragile civilization from the raging climate system our pollution has created. The Cancun compact has restored hope around the world, but now the actual work has to begin.

I have recently had the good fortune of receiving some insight from friends and colleagues participating as observers at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC) taking place in Cancun, Mexico, from 29 November to 10 December 2010. It encompasses the sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP) and the sixth Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP), as well as the thirty-third sessions of both the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), and the fifteenth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and thirteenth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA).

I have attempted to compile and summarize their thoughts as best I can. I hope you will find them as helpful as I have to better understand the current status of the negotiations as they move into their second week.

As in Copenhagen, the critical divisive issue in the Cancun negotiations is whether or not there will be a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol….. Continue Reading »

Winding my way through an amazing, challenging, profound season of living life and running a business in the carbon market, I come across much more pertinent information than one could ever convey (and continue to run a business in the carbon market).

We at lilcarbon have been discussing ways to get you our loyal readers more updates for some time. Our solution? Bring you more direct content from other wise bloggers and smart news sources. To summarize this approach to the process, you’ll get “less blab per post from us, and more from them.” Given that we’re tapped into the real good stuff on building the solutions to climate change – we think we can give you good “them”. Let us know what you think!

With the defeat of Proposition 23 in California, it’s full speed ahead for launching North America’s best carbon market yet. With the Draft Regulations released last month (geek way out here), the system is dotting its i’s and crossing the t’s. Those dots and dashes tell a lot about the shape of the North American carbon offset system in years to come.

Along with the doubling of the number of offsets that capped entities can use towards their compliance obligations, four offset project types were written into State regulations. Offsets will be allowed from forestry, urban forestry, livestock manure treatment and the reduction of ozone-depleting substances. More offset types may be included over time, but lilcarbon would like to point out the notable absence of admission for offsets from energy efficiency or renewable energy projects.

Joseph Pallant (moi) of CPS Carbon Project Solutions Inc. has long been pointing out the basis for this exclusion to a carbon market often unaware of these winds of change. Based in one of the key tenants of a carbon offset, Additionality, exists the essential rule that offsets cannot come from projects in a capped sector. This is for the twofold reason that a) the emissions reductions are already incentivised by the carbon cap/regulation and b) that offsets from this sector would essentially be double counted, as the capped entity directly “upstream” would be claiming any emissions reductions yielded by the project. Once California, and future WCI jurisdictions put in carbon caps for such sectors, action on projects in those capped sectors will have to morph out of the offset realm and in to some other.

CPS Carbon Project Solutions Inc. loves to work on any promising projects brought to their door, but it is of note that their North American projects have been exclusively from the forestry, urban forestry and livestock waste sectors since their inception in 2006. You’ll hear more on the topic here, and from CPS Carbon Project Solutions Inc. in white papers and conference presentations over the coming months.

An article published by CBC earlier this week discusses the importance of preparation for huge increase energy prices (and demand). The International Energy Agency (IEA) has given the warning.

“The Paris-based International Energy Agency said more must be done to increase energy efficiency and boost green technologies in order to meet what it predicts to be a 36 per cent jump in energy demand – increasingly driven by China between 2008 and 2035.”

What does this mean for North America? Perhaps taking action toward alternative energy resources and honing in on efficiency and sustainability. What are your thoughts and comments? Please share, we are listening.